AAA Response: Anarchists and Morality

Sunni, I stumble somewhat over the "subjective" phrasing of the question too -- whenever the subject of "morality" comes up, there's the inherent problem of "Whose morality?" Does the questioner recognize the subjective nature of moral cognizance, and will he also concede that other people may hold differing conceptions of morality, and convictions that will conflict or disagree with his own?

Does he also comprehend the distinction between individualist anarchism, and the collective-minded variety that most people unfortunately think of -- and which has gained ill repute for its adherents because they seem prone to indulge in violence and destruction of property?

An important difference is that individualists tend to be anarchists in the "without rulers" sense, rather than possessed of a militant "against rulers" mentality. Speaking strictly for myself, here, I recognize that those who would be rulers are people too, and should be held individually responsible for their actions -- nothing so legitimizes coercion and violence in people's eyes as the belief that government is "necessary." Enforcement of a "code of morality" is one of the justifications that is frequently given for the argument that some few people should control or constrain the behavior of the many; ultimately it's an argument over what standard of morality shall prevail and be enforced by those with the power or "authority" to use force.

Some of the functions that governments are instituted to perform may be indeed necessary -- free market or capitalist anarchists maintain that these needs could be better served in an atmosphere of free and innovative competition rather than stiflingly subject to a government monopoly, and that is my belief.

A few years back, I wrote an essay entitled What Anarchism Means to Me in the attempt to clarify my philosophy of anarchism -- it seems appropriate to post a link to it here for Farider or anyone else who might be interested in one woman's defense of anarchism as a philosophy to live by.

The "proponents of anarchy" are as diverse a group as you could find. Some derive their moral direction from religion, and feel that God's laws are incompatible with the State. Some are of an utilitarian bent, and will argue that the State is inefficient and counterproductive. Many seem to possess an ad-hoc collection of moral sentiments, assembled from bits borrowed from sources ranging from ancient history to science fiction. And there are lots who don't have two clues to bang together.

All in all, though, the moral arguments I've come across in favor of anarchy have been far more compelling than the reverse. What central principles can the statists claim? Thou shalt murder and steal?

I'm an anarchist and I disagree with those who say that morality -- as a guide to rightful or wrongful action -- is necessarily subjective.

This is because I hold that reality is real and humans are real and share a real fundamental and common nature -- a set of characteristics from which can be derived a set of rules which allow us to cooperate and prosper.

People may disagree about what these rules are, just as they can disagree as to the nature of quarks, but this does not affect what the correct rules are, any more than disagreement affects what quarks really are.

I don't have time to explain the moral basis for individualist anarchism but I can summarize it thusly: No one has the right, for any reason, to initiate force against another person or her property, nor to delegate or incite such an action. However, once force is initiated, the victim has a right to use force in self-defense and in seeking recompense for damage suffered due to the attack.

If you take this rule and apply it consistently to all human relationships, you get anarchism.

Sorry to butt in, but I think it's important to emphasize that morality pertains to individual action in the face of a personal dilemma -- 'What shall I do?'

I've argued against the universalized non-aggression principle (NAP) that Scott said was a rule conducive to anarchism. I think we should stick to a bland dictionary definition: anarchism is a form of social organization with no monarch, tribal chief, or legislature.

Scott, although the conversations seems to have hung on morality again (here are part one and part two, in case you missed them), that's not the only word that gave me pause. As Skeptical Man pointed out, there are lots of types of anarchists; and what exactly constitutes proof of "an understanding"?

Wolf, you aren't butting in at all; it's a pleasure to have you participating in the conversation.

Usta call myself a libertarian then an anarchist.

Found out I didn't agree with many of them. Just more group mind-fucking so I gave up the labels.

If you want something from me, ask or trade or hit the road and we can stay friends forever.

No exceptions.

Anything else is flappin'-jawed useless to me.

Now go ahead...label that and I'll deny the label.